Home
| Databases
| WorldLII
| Search
| Feedback
Generic Top Level Domain Name (gTLD) Decisions |
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance
Company v. ABCDriver Education
Claim
Number: FA0412000381219
Complainant is State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance
Company (“Complainant”), One State Farm Plaza, A-3, Bloomington, IL
61710. Respondent is ABCDriver Education (“Respondent”),
2207 Shoma Drive, Wellington, FL 33414.
REGISTRAR
AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES
The
domain names at issue are <statefarmdrivingtest.com>, <statefarmdrivingschool.com>,
<statefarmifr.com> and <statefarminsurancetest.com>,
registered with Go Daddy Software, Inc.
The
undersigned certifies that he has acted independently and impartially and, to
the best of his knowledge, has no known conflict
in serving as Panelist in this
proceeding.
The
Honorable Charles K. McCotter, Jr. (Ret.) as Panelist.
Complainant
submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on December
14, 2004; the National Arbitration
Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on
December 15, 2004.
On
December 14, 2004, Go Daddy Software, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the National
Arbitration Forum that the domain names <statefarmdrivingtest.com>,
<statefarmdrivingschool.com>, <statefarmifr.com> and <statefarminsurancetest.com>
are registered with Go Daddy Software, Inc. and that Respondent is the current
registrant of the names. Go Daddy Software, Inc. has
verified that Respondent
is bound by the Go Daddy Software, Inc. registration agreement and has thereby
agreed to resolve domain-name
disputes brought by third parties in accordance
with ICANN's Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the
"Policy").
On
December 20, 2004, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of
Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"),
setting
a deadline of January 10, 2005 by which Respondent could file a Response to the
Complaint, was transmitted to Respondent
via e-mail, post and fax, to all
entities and persons listed on Respondent's registration as technical, administrative
and billing
contacts, and to postmaster@statefarmdrivingtest.com,
postmaster@statefarmdrivingschool.com, postmaster@statefarmifr.com, and
postmaster@statefarminsurancetest.com
by e-mail.
Having
received no Response from Respondent, using the same contact details and
methods as were used for the Commencement Notification,
the National
Arbitration Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent
Default.
On
January 14, 2005, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided
by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration
Forum appointed the
Honorable Charles K. McCotter, Jr. (Ret.) as Panelist.
Having
reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the
"Panel") finds that the National Arbitration Forum
has discharged its
responsibility under Paragraph 2(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name
Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Rules")
"to employ reasonably
available means calculated to achieve actual notice to Respondent." Therefore, the Panel may issue its decision based
on the documents submitted and in accordance with the ICANN Policy, ICANN
Rules,
the National Arbitration Forum's Supplemental Rules and any rules and
principles of law that the Panel deems applicable, without
the benefit of any
Response from Respondent.
Complainant
requests that the domain names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant makes the following assertions:
1. Respondent’s <statefarmdrivingtest.com>,
<statefarmdrivingschool.com>, <statefarmifr.com> and <statefarminsurancetest.com>
domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s STATE FARM mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or
legitimate interests in the <statefarmdrivingtest.com>, <statefarmdrivingschool.com>,
<statefarmifr.com> and <statefarminsurancetest.com>
domain names.
3. Respondent registered and used the <statefarmdrivingtest.com>,
<statefarmdrivingschool.com>, <statefarmifr.com> and <statefarminsurancetest.com>
domain names in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in
this proceeding.
Complainant, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance
Company, conducts business in the insurance and financial services
industries. In 1999, Complainant opened
a federally chartered bank known as State Farm Bank.
Complainant first began using the STATE FARM mark in 1930. Complainant registered the STATE FARM mark
with the United States Patent and Trademark Office on June 11, 1996 (Reg. No.
1,979,585). Complainant has spent
substantial time, effort and funds to develop the goodwill associated with its
STATE FARM mark. Complainant also
promotes traffic accident and vehicle safety information and numerous other
educational and learning resources to
keep its insured drivers and passengers
safe. In addition, Complainant is a
founding member of the Insurance Institue for Highway Safety and strongly
supports “Partners for Child
Passenger Safety.”
Furthermore, Commplainant began to develop its web presence in 1995 when
it registered the <statefarm.com> domain name. Complainant uses this website to offer detailed information
regarding its insurance and financial products and services, consumer
information and information about Complainant’s independent contractor agents. The website also contains links to information
about vehicle safety, child passenger safety, driver behavior and vehicle
safety discounts.
Respondent registered the <statefarmdrivingtest.com> domain name on
March 24, 2004. On April 19, 2004,
Complainant’s Intellectual Property Administrator sent a cease and desist
letter to Respondent via certified mail.
Respondent contacted Complainant regarding the letter but later
registered the <statefarmdrivingschool.com>, <statefarmifr.com> and <statefarminsurancetest.com>
domain names on April 26, 2004. All of
the domain names resolve to a parking page for the registrar, Go Daddy
Software, Inc.
Paragraph 15(a)
of the Rules instructs this Panel to "decide a complaint on the basis of
the statements and documents submitted
in accordance with the Policy, these
Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable."
In view of
Respondent's failure to submit a Response, the Panel shall decide this
administrative proceeding on the basis of Complainant's
undisputed
representations pursuant to paragraphs 5(e), 14(a) and 15(a) of the Rules and
draw such inferences it considers appropriate
pursuant to paragraph 14(b) of
the Rules.
Paragraph 4(a)
of the Policy requires that Complainant must prove each of the following three
elements to obtain an order that a domain
name should be cancelled or
transferred:
(1) the domain name registered by Respondent
is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which
Complainant has
rights; and
(2) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests
in respect of the domain name; and
(3) the domain name has been registered and
is being used in bad faith.
Complainant has
established that it has rights in the STATE FARM mark through registration with
the United States Patent and Trademark
Office and by continuous use of its mark
in commerce for the last seventy-five years.
See Men’s Wearhouse, Inc. v. Wick, FA 117861 (Nat. Arb.
Forum Sept. 16, 2002) (“Under U.S. trademark law, registered marks hold a
presumption that they are inherently
distinctive and have acquired secondary
meaning.”); see also Janus Int’l
Holding Co. v. Rademacher, D2002-0201 (WIPO Mar. 5, 2002) (finding that
Panel decisions have held that registration of a mark is prima facie evidence of validity, which creates a rebuttable
presumption that the mark is inherently distinctive and that Respondent has the
burden
of refuting this assumption).
The <statefarmdrivingtest.com>,
<statefarmdrivingschool.com>, <statefarmifr.com> and <statefarminsurancetest.com>
domain names registered by Respondent are confusingly similar to Complainant’s
STATE FARM mark because the domain names incorporate
Complainant’s mark in its
entirety, deviating only by the addition of the generic or descriptive terms
“driving,” “test,” “school,”
or “insurance” or the letter combination
“ifr.” Furthermore, several of these
terms are related to Complainant’s products and services in the areas of
insurance and finance. Therefore, the
Panel finds that the mere addition of generic or descriptive terms or letter
combinations to Complainant’s registered
mark is insufficient to negate the
confusing similarity of the disputed domain name. See Arthur Guinness
Son & Co. (Dublin) Ltd. v. Healy/BOSTH, D2001-0026 (WIPO Mar. 23, 2001)
(finding confusing similarity where the domain name in dispute contains the
identical mark of Complainant
combined with a generic word or term); see
also Kelson Physician Partners, Inc.
v. Mason, CPR003 (CPR 2000) (finding that <kelsonmd.com> is identical
or confusingly similar to Complainant’s federally registered service
mark,
“Kelson”).
Accordingly, the
Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been satisfied.
Complainant has
alleged that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed
domain names, which contain an identical
version of Complainant’s STATE FARM
mark. Once Complainant makes a prima
facie case in support of its allegations, the burden shifts to Respondent
to show that it does have such rights or legitimate interests
pursuant to
Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). However, Respondent
has failed to respond to the Complaint, so the Panel assumes that Respondent
lacks rights and legitimate interests
in the disputed domain names. See G.D. Searle v. Martin Mktg.,
FA 118277 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 1, 2002) (holding that where Complainant has
asserted that Respondent has no rights or legitimate
interests with respect to
the domain name it is incumbent on Respondent to come forward with concrete
evidence rebutting this assertion
because this information is “uniquely within
the knowledge and control of the respondent”); see also Do The
Hustle, LLC v. Tropic Web, D2000-0624 (WIPO Aug. 21, 2000) (finding that
once Complainant asserts that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests
with
respect to the domain, the burden shifts to Respondent to provide credible
evidence that substantiates its claim of rights and legitimate
interests in the
domain name); see also Charles
Jourdan Holding AG v. AAIM, D2000-0403 (WIPO June 27, 2000) (finding it
appropriate for the Panel to draw adverse inferences from Respondent’s failure
to reply
to the Complaint).
The disputed
domain names registered by Respondent resolve to parking pages for the
registrar. According to the Complaint,
Respondent has not made any use of the disputed domain names. Pursuant to Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) and (ii), the
Panel finds that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in domain
names that
infringe upon Complainant’s famous STATE FARM mark where Respondent
has failed to make any use of the domain names. See Pharmacia &
Upjohn AB v. Romero, D2000-1273 (WIPO Nov. 13, 2000) (finding no rights or
legitimate interests where Respondent failed to submit a Response to the
Complaint
and had made no use of the domain name in question); see also Am. Home Prod. Corp. v. Malgioglio,
D2000-1602 (WIPO Feb. 19, 2001) (finding no rights or legitimate interests in
the domain name <solgarvitamins.com> where Respondent
merely passively
held the domain name); see also Boeing
Co. v. Bressi, D2000-1164 (WIPO Oct. 23, 2000) (finding no rights or
legitimate interests where Respondent has advanced no basis on which the Panel
could conclude that it has a right or legitimate interest in the domain names,
and no use of the domain names has been established).
Additionally, no
evidence in the record suggests that Respondent is commonly known by the disputed
domain names and Respondent has
provided no proof to establish rights or
legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. Furthermore, there is no relationship between Complainant and
Respondent and Complainant has not authorized Respondent to use its
STATE FARM
mark in any way. Therefore, the Panel
concludes that Respondent has not established that it has rights or legitimate
interests in the disputed domain
names pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See RMO, Inc. v. Burbridge, FA
96949 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 16, 2001) (interpreting Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) "to
require a showing that one has been commonly known
by the domain name prior to
registration of the domain name to prevail"); see also Compagnie de Saint Gobain v. Com-Union Corp.,
D2000-0020 (WIPO Mar. 14, 2000) (finding no rights or legitimate interests
where Respondent was not commonly known by the mark
and never applied for a
license or permission from Complainant to use the trademarked name).
Thus, the Panel
finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been satisfied.
While Policy ¶
4(b) lists four circumstances which constitute evidence of bad faith
registration and use if they are found to be present,
this list is not intended
to be a limitation on finding evidence of bad faith registration and use. In fact, additional factors can be used by
the Panel to support findings of bad faith registration and use. See Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp. v. Risser, FA 93761 (Nat. Arb.
Forum May 18, 2000) (finding that in determining if a domain name has been
registered in bad faith, the Panel
must look at the “totality of
circumstances”); see also Do The Hustle, LLC v. Tropic Web,
D2000-0624 (WIPO Aug. 21, 2000) (“the examples [of bad faith] in Paragraph 4(b)
are intended to be illustrative, rather than exclusive”).
It does not
appear from the record that Respondent has made any use of the four disputed
domain names that contain entire versions
of Complainant’s registered STATE
FARM mark and merely resolve to a parking page for the registrar. However, even if Respondent posted
information related to the generic terms in the domain names, such content
associated with a domain
name containing Complainant’s mark would be in
conflict with information provided by Complainant on the same topics. Thus, the Panel finds evidence of bad faith
registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) despite the fact that there
appears
to have been no use of the domain names, because the Panel cannot
conceive of any use that would not equate to bad faith in this
circumstance. See Phat Fashions v. Kruger, FA 96193 (Nat.
Arb. Forum Dec. 29, 2000) (finding bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) even though
Respondent has not used the domain
name because “[i]t makes no sense whatever
to wait until it actually ‘uses’ the name, when inevitably, when there is such
use, it
will create the confusion described in the Policy”); see also Alitalia –Linee Aeree Italiane S.p.A v.
Colour Digital, D2000-1260 (WIPO Nov. 23, 2000) (finding bad faith where
Respondent made no use of the domain name in question and there are no
other
indications that Respondent could have registered and used the domain name in
question for any non-infringing purpose).
Respondent
registered four domain names that incorporate Complainant’s STATE FARM mark in
its entirety, adding only generic or descriptive
terms or letter
combinations. Furthermore,
Complainant’s registration of its mark with the USPTO confers constructive
knowledge on anyone attempting to register
the mark. This suggests that Respondent knew of Complainant’s rights in the
STATE FARM mark. Additionally,
Respondent registered the <statefarmdrivingschool.com>, <statefarmifr.com>
and <statefarminsurancetest.com> domain names after Complainant
had sent a cease and desist letter to Respondent concerning the <statefarmdrivingtest.com>
domain name. Thus, the Panel finds
that Respondent chose the disputed domain names based on the distinctive and
well-known qualities of Complainant’s
mark.
See Digi Int’l v. DDI Sys., FA 124506 (Nat. Arb. Forum
Oct. 24, 2002) (“[T]here is a legal presumption of bad faith, when Respondent
reasonably should have
been aware of Complainant’s trademarks, actually or
constructively.”); see also Entrepreneur Media, Inc. v. Smith, [2002] USCA9 115; 279 F.3d 1135,
1148 (9th
Cir. Feb. 11, 2002) ("Where an alleged infringer chooses a mark he knows
to be similar to another, one can infer an intent
to confuse."); see
also Orange Glo Int’l v. Blume, FA 118313 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 4,
2002) (“Complainant’s OXICLEAN mark is listed on the Principal Register of the
USPTO, a status
that confers constructive notice on those seeking to register
or use the mark or any confusingly similar variation thereof.”).
The Panel finds
that Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) has been satisfied.
Having
established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel
concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it
is Ordered that the <statefarmdrivingtest.com>, <statefarmdrivingschool.com>,
<statefarmifr.com> and <statefarminsurancetest.com>
domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
The Honorable Charles K. McCotter, Jr.
(Ret.), Panelist
Dated:
January 28, 2005
WorldLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.worldlii.org/int/other/GENDND/2005/2.html